0 points

Meaningless since the Republicans run the House.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Action denied is just more evidence of their complicitness rather than supposed. Also makes it very clear who does operate for their constitutes and only for their self interest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But defeatism tho!

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Correct. This isn’t an open debate anymore - the bribes were accepted. Every no vote is a vote saying it’s ok to bribe the court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The people who need to be convinced to care already don’t care. The GOP isn’t going to help remove their staunchest pawns on the court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yep this is as performative as the GOP threatening impeachment of Mayorkas. I get why she’s doing it but it’s going to be dead by Friday.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

It’s not entirely meaningless. Her aim is to keep the justices recent rulings in the media so that voters are aware of them come Nov.

AOC isn’t a dummy, and she’s knows that Johnson will immediately throw this in the trash.

I’d like to see someone else do this next week, and then another person the week after, etc etc. keep doing it until Nov. Keep reminding voters about the corruption.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
1 point

Truck nuts!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

She has no leg to stand on… Corruption is legal in the US for high ranking officials.

Congress and Mullahs are on the side here lol

permalink
report
reply
2 points

lol.

🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Can’t they just make it a law they can’t be impeached? Can’t they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?

permalink
report
reply
7 points

That’s not how the three branches work, no.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

The three branches are working?

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

The country’s “check engine” light is on, and she’s trying to fix it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s not necessary, as far as I understand there’s a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That’s not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can’t succeed, but it’s their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can’t they just dismiss the case with prejudice?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Impeachment isn’t a criminal process, it’s a political one, the same rules don’t apply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

“We think the intent of this ‘Impeach These Clowns Act’ was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can’t be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
265 points

Like her or not, that lady got some hard as steel balls. AOC for president woooo!

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Not really, the damage has been done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
109 points

Hey, DNC, aren’t you desperate to put a woman up for election? You’ve got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff. The conservatives haven’t had time to run decades of smear tactics against her and she hasn’t been threatening her husband’s SA victims. I bet she already has a plan to deal with someone accusing her of being born in Mexico (I understand she’s Puerto Rican, but that’s not the bogeyman) and shut it down before years of idiocy bring it up again.

She’s standing behind Biden this time around. I’m hoping for a run in 2028. It would be the first presidential candidate in a while that I didn’t hold my nose to vote for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’d vote for her, but I don’t think she’s ready. Better than Biden though.

Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He’s not perfect, but there’s not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.

I don’t know if Jon or AOC would make a better president, but Jon would be better at campaigning against Trump.

But really just give us someone under 65. (Note: I’ll still vote for the good person who’s too old for the job if the alternative isn’t better.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

pls no more reality tv presidents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He’s not perfect, but there’s not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.

Stewart would be terrible for it.

Smart guy, great at calling BS, but he’s continued to preach understanding and cooperation in the post Trump world in a way that, plainly, isn’t possible when the American right operates in pure bad faith at basically every turn.

Take all the issues Obama had getting walked all over because he tried to work with the GOP and amplify it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I would literally pay hundreds of dollars to see Jon Stewart debate Trump, like pay per view. Jon would eviscerate Trump. He might frustrate him so much he’d have a heart attack right there on stage …. or better yet cause Trump to shit and completely overflow his diaper. Trump should probably wear his brown pants just in case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Stewart would never run.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I definitely get the love for Stewart. However, he holds no elected position and has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in running for president. So I’m not going to be the one to hold a gun to his head and force him to run.

AOC has the proper ambitions. If she’s not ready then let her decide that because the only reason she wouldn’t be is because a bunch of out of touch old dudes refuse to mentor her and I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

AOC suffers the same problem as Nancy Peloci: she’s too demonized by the GOP. It’s an odd problem to have but she would need to retire from the House for a few years and run later.

If you want AOC-like, Kathy Porter is actually a very viable candidate. The question is whether the DNC is willing to let her actually run or if they’ll pull a “It’s Hillary’s turn” like they did to Bernie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I was pretty bummed when she lost the Senate race

permalink
report
parent
reply
50 points

Who gives a shit what the GOP wants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Katie Porter

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I think AOC has a lot of the same features that made Bernie so popular on 2016 with the added benefit of youth.

The GOP will try to demonize, but she will rise above the noise the same way Bernie did. Given that she is so young, she can stay relevant and pick and choose the exact moment she wants to run for president. Or even VEEP as the gateway to presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

she’s too demonized by the GOP.

This will be true of any candidate another party runs. It is their primary MO, so ultimately, it needs to be factored out of discussions like these. If Joe Voter believes that shit anyway, it doesn’t actually matter what candidate you run.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

she only turns 35 in october so she’s got a long future ahead of her but she wouldn’t be eligible until 2028.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

She only needs to be 35 when taking office, from what I understand. So would be eligible now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

First and foremost, she isnt eligible to be president until next year. She’s only 34, and won’t be 35 until after the inauguration.

Whoops, looks like I misread and was off by a year. I don’t think it’s going to matter this time around, but hopefully they keep her in mind for the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Per US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

AOC was born in New York City, NY, USA on 10/13/1989. On 10/13/2024, as in this October 13th, AOC will turn 35 years old. At that point she will be eligible to take the office of the presidency.

35 would be the youngest age of any president, though. The most recent younger presidents were Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at 47 and 46, respectively. The youngest ever president was Theodore Roosevelt at 42.

It would be a hard line to cross given that the majority of voters seem to be older, but it would be monumental in my nation’s history.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

If you read the second paragraph they are talking about 2028

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

She’s a firebrand—that’s not an insult. But it is a fact that if the DNC puts her to run, she will mobilize a lot of voters who may otherwise sit this one out. Hard to say definitively how many on either side; but I think she’s likely more hated by the rightwing base than she is loved by the left wing/centrist base.

I don’t think it would be a good strategic move in this cycle. Although I’d love to see her in the Oval Office and would vote that way should the chance arise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Agreed on this cycle. Agree or not we’ve got Biden. That’s not changing and that’s who I’ll be behind. But damn, next cycle if she’s in the primary I’m going to get even more involved than I already am.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Any good leftist candidate would mobilize opposition voters, that is unavoidable. It’s no reason to not run a good candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Uh, late 40s here. I didn’t want to vote for Clinton (I did), but I’ll be first in line for AOC. She’s the right kind of direction to inspire us Genx who vote liberal. Time for Joe to step down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

She would have a real chance at winning this cycle…thus there’s no way they’d run her.

This will be the last cycle we have Democrats…a LOT of people are about to fall out of windows Russia style after Trump takes office.

The Supreme Court made him a king and people like AoC will be first on his hit list.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Problem: The Democratic Party would rather loose than get a left-winger elected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I would gladly vote for her. Hell I’d even volunteer for her campaign.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

You’ve got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff.

All evidence suggests that’s the opposite of what the DNC wants

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

A moderate Crusty old white guy or bust! And then when he’s too old say he shouldn’t be running…

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What’s an SA victim ?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Sexual assault victim. Bill Clinton is a rapist and general sex pest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

SA is sexual assault

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

On one hand, she has more efficacy in congress, on the other hand: fuck those fucking fucks AOC 24 let’s fucking go!

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

OMFG Her vs trump debate. PLEASE!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I don’t want Trump to be around when she’s running. 😇

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I fully agree with this innocent nonthreatening comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

AOC for president woooo!

She’s eligible right now because she’ll be 35 by inauguration day.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 109K

    Comments